2011/03/14 RFT: “County Smoking Ban Exemptions On the Way Out, Tobacco-Free St. Louis Says”

Reminder: A comment for consideration must be accompanied by your full name. First name only or a pseudonym is not normally accepted. Please limit your comment to 1,000 characters and also avoid epithets and personal attacks.

This story, which appeared last month in the Riverfront Times, has prompted a reaction from an O’Fallon councilman who opposes smoking restrictions. The councilman has now followed through on a threat to file a complaint with the IRS alleging that the not-for-profit group, Tobacco-Free St. Louis, is engaging in lobbying efforts which are forbidden under IRS rules. Pat Lindsey, who heads TFSTL and is a veteran in the field, defends the group’s actions as legitimate and within the scope of a recently awarded federal grant.

Smoking Bans
County Smoking Ban Exemptions On the Way Out, Tobacco-Free St. Louis Says
By Sarah Fenske, Mon., Mar. 14 2011 @ 12:24PM Comments (12)

County Executive Charlie Dooley: Is he about to get his way on smoking ban exemptions? Tobacco-Free St. Louis says yes.

The non-profit agency Tobacco Free St. Louis has a $545,000 contract with St. Louis County to — among other things — urge the county council to remove exemptions from the county smoking ban.
         As we reported last week, the contract is being paid with federal stimulus funds, raising questions about whether federal tax dollars are being used to pay for lobbying (which is strictly verboten). Non-profits are also barred under IRS rules from using any more than “insubstantial” portion of their income on lobbying efforts.


Pat Lindsey, TFMo STL

But Pat Lindsey, the agency’s director, tells Daily RFT that any questions about that part of the contract are moot. Getting rid of the exemptions, she implied, is already a done deal.
         “We don’t have to lobby,” she says. “There are meetings going on right now with [County Executive Charlie] Dooley and the county health department and the powers that be to remove the exemptions in the smoking ban.”
         Adds Lindsey, “We’re not involved.”
         So why was that included in the contract’s scope of work? Lindsey says that the Centers for Disease Control, which was the source of the federal grant funding the work, required that the county partner with an active coalition. Lindsey’s group, which is officially titled “Tobacco-Free Missouri — Greater St. Louis Coalition” was basically the only one around that fit the bill.
         She insists her agency never even considered doing any lobbying: “We can educate, but we don’t lobby.”
         And that’s a good thing: IRS regulations hold that a non-profit with annual expenditures of less than $500,000, which includes Tobacco-Free St. Louis, can spend no more than $100,000 annually on lobbying efforts. Considering the contract with St. Louis County is worth five times that, any lobbying could quickly put the agency’s non-profit status into jeopardy. (Bill Hannegan, director of Keep St. Louis Free, told Daily RFT last week he was thinking of filing a complaint over just that.)
         But Lindsey says her agency doesn’t intend to focus on the county council, despite the contract’s scope of work. Confident the exemptions are on their way out, she says cessation efforts will be the agency’s big focus. “It looks like we’re not going to have do much [about exemptions],” she says. “We’re going to be doing other things.”
         For the record, Lindsey tells Daily RFT she doesn’t think the county will remove the exemption that allows smoking in casinos any time soon. But, currently, the county allows smoking in bars where food sales are 25 percent or less of the total revenue. (The city ban only allows smoking if the bar is no larger than 2,000 square feet.) Dooley has indicated his unhappiness with the number of places being exempted — and Lindsey tells Daily RFT she’s heard the current level of food sale exemptions is on the chopping block.
         “Just the other day, a gentlemen called who said, ‘What’s the point of this ordinance when people who serve food are still allowing smoking?'” she reports. “We’ve received a lot of complaints.”

4 responses to “2011/03/14 RFT: “County Smoking Ban Exemptions On the Way Out, Tobacco-Free St. Louis Says”

  1. MoGasp, you wrote, “This attitude is symptomatic of some area legislators who cannot accept that secondhand smoke is an air pollutant which should be removed… ”

    MoGasp, what on earth do views on ETS have to do with the possibility that an organization is stealing tax money by diverting it to political lobbying ends? I could think ETS was as pure as mother’s milk and still be concerned about such political perversion where it may exist.

    Regarding Bill H’s email note to you, we’ve discussed this before. The arrangement discussed between you had to do with cooperative joint air testing. You chose to go and do your air testing clandestinely instead. You may have had some small degree of grounds/excuse for doing so, but it’s quite understandable that Bill/DDL might have felt you were wrong, and his email about possible legal consequences if you used such unverified results to attack a business was reasonable even if it felt unpleasant.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

    mogasp response: We did the test independently of Bill Hannegan and Keep St. Louis Free because I had no confidence in the scientist Bill wished to involve in the testing. I do have confidence in my own abilities as a scientist to do impartial testing, because otherwise it has no value.

  2. Mogasp wrote, “We did the test independently of Bill Hannegan and Keep St. Louis Free because I had no confidence in the scientist Bill wished to involve in the testing. I do have confidence in my own abilities as a scientist to do impartial testing, because otherwise it has no value.”

    Mogasp, and why would you think Bill or KSTLF would have any more confidence in your scientist or your impartiality any more than vice-versa? Can you provide a rational reason as to why you would think that, given the relationship between your groups?

    The whole idea was that you would do the testing TOGETHER so that each of you could check on the other and there would be NO question about poor science or biased technique that wasn’t right out there in the open. When you proceeded to do secret testing on your own you torpedoed that opportunity and I believe that was most unfortunate.

    – MJM

  3. Plus Michael we would have had the permission and cooperation of the establishment. Either group could have brought in any testing equipment they liked and placed it anywhere they thought best for as long as necessary to obtain the most accurate results. No hurried sneaking about a la James Repace.

  4. If that test was done like the MOGASP airport smoking lounge study, then it took 4 hours of sampling to obtain enough nicotine for detection by a very modern, sensitive, scientific instrument. …in other words, hardly anything was there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s